CHAPTER 1

A Humanistic Perspective
on Leadership

Michael Pirson

Leadership is a much beloved term in the Anglo-Saxon world and beyond, and being a leader is seen as an important quality. There is however much confusion of what a good leader is and humanity has suffered substantially from bad leadership. In this chapter, I outline a science-based ­perspective on good leadership, which draws on evolutionary theory and the work of Paul Lawrence. Evolutionary theory allows us to understand what made the human species survive throughout the thousands of years. This perspective can help illuminate why our species seems on the brink of extinction and how it can be avoided, if and when better leadership is provided.

The Baseline Model

Evolutionary biology points to four independent drives of human nature, which are critical for the survival of the species. Darwin suggests that we share an evolutionary background with many animals,1 while neuroscience’s insights point to deeply rooted neural mechanisms that reward us when we acquire and defend what we deem necessary for survival. Lawrence and Nohria (2002) label two basic drives that we share with all animals as (a) the drive to acquire (dA) and (b) the drive to defend (dD).2

The Drive to Acquire (dA)

Lawrence argues that humans, in common with all animals, have a fundamental drive to get what they need to stay alive and have progeny: food, water, warmth, sex, and so on.3 Modern neuroscience provides evidence to support the biological basis of the drive to acquire.4 Researchers found, for example, that an area in the brain called the “nucleus accumbens” lights up with increased blood flow when people and animals experience pleasurable sensations from objects they encounter, ranging from tasty food to the sight of a beautiful face.5 This drive is commonly acknowledged by many economic and management theorists, including Jensen and Meckling, as the basis for utility maximization.

The Drive to Defend (dD)

Lawrence and Nohria claim that in most species the drive to defend is a mirror image of the drive to acquire.6 What needs defending is what is needed to be acquired—food, water, warmth, mates, and so on. Carter and Frith present evidence that the drive to defend seems, like the other drives, to be housed in the limbic area of the brain, specifically in a module called the “amygdala.”7 Carter and Frith explain that the amygdala acts as the brain’s alarm system. Depending on the situation, the amygdala may issue a feeling of panic, which translates into a flight mechanism. However, it could also stimulate excessively friendly behavior to appease the opponent. A third response could be to fight, which is increasingly inappropriate in modern civilizations. ­Lawrence and Nohria further argue that, in humans, the drive to defend means far more—not only the physical necessities of life and procreation, but also relationships, cooperative efforts, and world views (see the idea of protected values).8 Similar to the drive to acquire, humans can satisfy their drive to defend in a huge variety of ways, and often in cooperation with others.9

A Humanistic Extension

Simplified, the two drives (drive to acquire and drive to defend) go far to explain the economistic perspective on human nature. The economistic perspective views human beings as fundamentally egoistic, amoral utility maximizers (Homo economicus). Within this perspective, all other drives and interests are subordinate to the ambition to maximize the drive to acquire.10 Spencer’s account of Darwin’s findings11 reduced human behavior largely to a two-drive model, which subordinated all other human concerns to the impetus of acquiring and defending.

The novelty of the recent evolutionary findings and their importance lie in the addition of two important and independent drives, or what Lawrence and Nohria label (1) the drive to bond (dB) and (2) the drive to comprehend (dC). Based on these findings, Lawrence developed a renewed Darwinian theory (RD theory),12 which rehabilitates Darwin’s groundbreaking insights into human behavior, which are often overlooked or misunderstood.13 In essence, RD theory explains how the human brain has developed via natural selection, as well as through sex and group selection mechanisms, to make complex decisions about all aspects of life (personal, communal, and societal). This theory posits that the two additional drives are independent of the other drives and represent critical ultimate motives that underlie all human decisions: The drive to bond (dB) enables long-term, mutually caring relationships with other humans, and the drive to comprehend (dC) allows us to make sense of the world around us in terms of its multifaceted relations with ourselves.14 In Darwin’s own words:

The small strength and speed of man, his want of natural weapons, etc., are more than counterbalanced by his intellectual powers, through which he has formed himself weapons, tools, etc., and secondly by his social qualities which lead him to give and receive aid from his fellow-men.15

In the following section, the evidence for the existence of these two independent drives is presented in more detail. It is important to note that these arguments are still developing as new evidence is constantly being generated, but the theoretical basis of a four-drive model of human behavior provides propositions that can be tested. We believe it will do a better job of explaining the complexity of human behavior, and provide a better predictive theory.

The Drive to Bond (dB)

Aristotle hinted at the drive to bond when he stated that human beings are social animals (zoon politikon).16 Darwin observed the drive to bond in humans when stating:

Every one will admit that man is a social being. We see this in his dislike of solitude and in his wish for society beyond that of his own family. Solitary confinement is one of the severest punishments which can be inflicted.17

or

Under circumstances of extreme peril, as during a fire, when a man endeavors to save a fellow-creature without a moment’s hesitation, he can hardly feel pleasure; and still less has the time to reflect on the dissatisfaction which he might subsequently experience if he did not make the attempt. Should he afterwards reflect over his own conduct, he would feel that there lies within him an impulsive power widely different from a search after pleasure or happiness; and this seems to be the deeply planted social instinct.18

These observations seem almost trivial, as most of us will have observed that people tend to form bonds with other people. Lawrence, however, suggests that we need to reevaluate this utterly familiar phenomenon not simply as “the way people are,” or as “the innate goodness in people,” but as one of four survival-oriented criteria.19

E.O. Wilson suggests that this sociality of human nature allowed its survival and the conquest of the Earth.20 A number of experiments have offered evidence that there is an independent drive to bond that our brain supports. LeDoux, for example, found that when certain parts of the limbic area—the hypothalamus and anterior thalamus—are impaired, individuals have a difficult time forming any meaningful or stable social relationships.21 Similarly, d’Amasio suggests that damage in certain parts of the brain leaves people lacking emotions, the ability to make rational decisions, and to form new bonds.22 In experiments that examined group bonding mechanisms, Tajfel found that a group of strangers, divided into arbitrary subgroups, forms surprisingly strong attachments to members of the same group, even if the group is completely meaningless and has no prior history.23 Studies by Warneken and Tomasello, who found that human infants (between 18 and 24 months old) show a spontaneous, unrewarded impulse to help others, even though they seem too young to have emulated this behavior from adults, provide further support for the innate and independent drive to bond.24 In these experiments, researchers, who were strangers to the toddlers, accidentally dropped items and pretended to unsuccessfully reach for them. The children retrieved the items for the experimenter 89 percent of the time. Henrich and ­colleagues, who find that the value of fairness exists across cultures, and trumps the drive to acquire in what is called “the ultimatum game,” provide ­further evidence that this impulse may not be socially learned, but inherent and universal.25

Searching for Homo economicus, the researchers conducted experiments in 15 countries across the globe to see how people would react when they were offered money, let’s say US$100. This “ultimatum game,” allows people to suggest whether and how much they would share their windfall sum. A second person has the right to accept or to reject the offered sum. If the second player rejects, no one will receive any money. The researchers found that, across the globe, players rarely behaved as Homo economicus are expected to behave, that is, either offering or accepting the smallest sum of money. Instead, they largely preferred a “fair” sharing of the cash and rejected “unfair” proposals, even to their detriment.26 To further highlight how deeply the drive to bond affects us, Lawrence argues that all humans, except the rare psychopath, experience pain at the loss of an important long-term relationship, whether by death, divorce, downsizing, or any other causes.27 For example, emigration is known to cause deep and lasting grief.28 In many cases, this pain is so deep that a reductionist explanation using the drives to acquire and defend is insufficient.

The Drive to Comprehend (dC)

Aristotle observed the drive to comprehend when he qualified humans as social animals endowed with reason. Many scholars have since suggested that humans have a fundamental drive to understand themselves and their environment.29 Gribbin and Gribbin refer to it as mankind’s insatiable curiosity.30 Darwin referred to the drive to comprehend by stating:

As soon as the important faculties of the imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would naturally crave to understand what was passing around him, and could have vaguely speculated on his own existence.31

Lawrence argues that the drive to comprehend can be witnessed in the curiosity of children, who ask questions without knowing whether the answers will ever be of any use to them in fulfilling their other drives. Even newborns, once fed and secure, start exploring the world with their eyes and their hands. The popularity of puzzles, Sudoku, or trivia quizzes is also testimony to the independent drive to comprehend, since solving them provides immediate gratification, but only remotely serves in other terms. Another supporting argument is that anthropologists have not found a single culture that does not have a creation story, and few that do not have an afterlife story.32 People seem to need these stories to give meaning to their lives,33 regardless of whether or not the stories confer any advantage in acquiring, bonding, or defending. Lawrence goes as far as to suggest that religions arose in all societies primarily to help fulfill this drive. Psychologist Steven Pinker argues that the drive to comprehend has helped humans survive against stronger and faster animals by devising weaponry, building houses, and so on.34 Rather than doing things by instinct, humans tend to figure things out, which in turn can prove very useful as a survival mechanism.

Development Toward Independence of Drives

Why is the previous argument about four different, independent drives relevant? After all, bonding and comprehension could simply be used to acquire and defend better, thus supporting the Spencerian, economistic narrative. According to anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists, the independence of the drives to bond and comprehend from the basic drives is key to understanding human evolution. In fact, evolutionary scholars argue that humans have evolved a brain that can continually adapt to its contemporary environment, rather than relying on its adaptation to an ancestral environment.35 Accordingly, our brain was an adaptation to a period of extreme and comparatively rapid climatic shifts, the first occurring about two million years ago, and the second occurring around 150,000 years ago.36 These two major shifts explain the development of independent drives to bond and to comprehend; the drive to bond emerged when human ancestors transitioned from Homo habilis to Homo erectus. The drive to comprehend emerged during the shift from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens.

The Emergence of Bonding

The first evolutionary shift occurred about two million years ago and established the human drive to bond in our neural blueprint.37 It arguably occurred because pair-bonding proved essential to the survival of the hominid line.38 Adam Kuper, a South African anthropologist, argues that Homo erectus proved fitter for survival than its hominid predecessor, Homo habilis, mainly because its brain supported a nuclear family structure.39 Such a structure proved superior, because with increasing brain sizes and slower maturation, offsprings needed increased protection. The family bond became a survival mechanism and was probably strengthened by the discovery of fire. Once controlled, fire supported small communities and changed their feeding patterns. Physical anthropologist Richard Wrangham and his colleagues have pointed out that cooking increased the food supply by making it possible to consume plants, such as many roots, that were otherwise toxic or too tough to chew.40 In addition, cooking helped conserve food and allowed edibles to be stored.41 The downside of storage was that food would be much more vulnerable to theft, particularly by larger males. According to Wrangham and ­colleagues, females, who most probably gathered the vegetables, therefore looked for help with guarding the food.42 Hence, there was a clear evolutionary advantage in mating with a reliable man willing to bond with a particular woman.43

There is mounting evidence that the drive to bond is manifested as an independent drive in our brain. The independent status means that satiation of the drive to bond occurs independently of other drives’ satiation. Nevertheless, research suggests that the brain and the human nervous system reward satiation of the drive to bond in a very similar manner as the drive to acquire and the drive to defend. For example, researchers at the National Institutes of Health scanned the brains of volunteers who had been asked to think about either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves. When the volunteers thought about donating the money, a section of the limbic area of their brain lit up.44 This, surprisingly, was also the nucleus accumbens, which usually lights up in response to food or sex.45 Similar evidence suggests that bonding through, for example, donating money increases human well-being much more than acquiring, such as keeping the money for oneself.46 Other research suggests that altruism is not necessarily a superior moral faculty for ­suppressing an egoistic nature, but a hard-wired element that leads to pleasure.47 Either way, Lawrence argues that the drive to bond is a full-fledged drive in its own right, and is hard-wired into the brain.48

Comprehension Matters

The shift from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens finally introduced the drive to comprehend as an independent drive in our neural structure. This shift is known as the Upper Paleolithic transition, which is believed to have occurred about 150,000 years ago.49 According to many evolutionary scholars, Homo erectus, who probably only developed very simple tools made of stone and wood, evolved into modern Homo sapiens. With this transition, the human species developed language, sophisticated technologies, complex tribal institutions, and civilization as we know it today.50 Steven Pinker described the dramatic transition in these terms:

Calling it a revolution is no exaggeration. All other hominids come out of the comic strip B.C., but the Upper Paleolithic ­people were the Flintstones. More than 45,000 years ago they somehow crossed sixty miles of open ocean to reach Australia, where they left behind hearths, cave paintings, the world’s first polished tools, and today’s aborigines. Europe (home of the ­Cro-Magnon) and the Middle East also saw unprecedented arts and technologies, which used new materials like antler, ivory, and bone as well as stone, sometimes transported hundreds of miles. The ­toolkit included fine blades, needles, awls, many kinds of axes and ­scrapers, spear points, spear throwers, bows and arrows, fishhooks, engravers, flutes, maybe even calendars. They built shelters, and they slaughtered large animals by the thousands. They decorated everything in sight—tools, cave walls, their bodies—and carved knick-knacks in the shapes of animals and naked women, which archeologists euphemistically call “fertility symbols.” They were us... [This] first human revolution was not a cascade of changes set off by a few key inventions. Ingenuity itself was the invention, manifested in hundreds of innovations tens of thousands of miles and years apart.51

Pinker’s observation that “ingenuity itself was the invention,” suggests the emergence of what Lawrence and Nohria call an “independent drive to comprehend” in Homo sapiens; increasing empirical evidence points to its independent physical existence in the brain as well. Neuroscientists Irving Biederman and Edward Vessel found that a part of the brain, which helps recognize what we see, seems to be equipped with its own reward system of opiate receptors, which give a pleasurable “high” when stimulated by a new image.52 This pleasurable “high” can also be experienced when getting a right answer in a trivia quiz or solving a Sudoku. In history, such emotional reactions to “getting it” have also been described as the “Eureka” effect.53 Increasing evidence demonstrates that humans yearn for novelty, creativity, and understanding, because our brain rewards us for it. At the same time, the human brain does not reward routine and monotony, which typically lead to boredom. Biederman and Vessel found that a pleasurable response is diminished when the same image was recognized repeatedly. According to Biederman and Vessel, these opiate receptors get bored by repetition and need new stimulation, which leads us to curiosity. According to Lawrence, humans are directly rewarded with pleasure when learning something new. The human brain time and again rewards comprehending independently. Throughout evolution, the hard-wired reward for learning has had a positive side effect, in that species that learned became more adaptive than species that did not keep learning.54

Psychopathy: A Three-Drive Genetic Defect and Source of Bad Leadership

Whereas most representatives of Homo sapiens arguably share these four independent drives, there appears to be a minor yet important exception. Lawrence (2010) argues that over the history of human survival, some people did not develop the independent drive to bond. These people were asocial and usually outcasts in society. Throughout evolution they had been marginalized, but never completely eradicated as they were practically able to live as parasites. In fact, it is estimated that about 1 percent of the population does lack that independent drive to bond, causing what is otherwise known as psychopathy (Hare 1999; Hare and Neumann 2008). Psychologist Robert Hare, a leading researcher on psychopathy for more than 25 years, describes psychopaths as:

Social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret. (1999, p. xi)

They have “an insatiable appetite for power and control” (1999, p. 218) combined with “a deeply disturbing inability to care about the pain and suffering experienced by others—in short, a complete lack of empathy” (p. 6). Researchers have identified psychopaths (whom biologists and economists call “free-riders” and whom sociologists and some psychologists tend to call “sociopaths”) as people with a genetic defect (Hare and Neumann 2008). They are incapable of empathy and have no skill set of conscience or morality (Cleckley 1982). Their jaw-dropping selfishness and lack of empathy does not come from exaggerated drives to acquire and defend; these drives are normal—which means they are innate, unconscious, independent, and insatiable—but are not checked and balanced by a drive to have trusting and caring relationships with others (Buckholtz et al. 2010). Lawrence (2010) describes them as wild animals—motivated mainly by the two universal animal drives—but with all the advantages of a human drive to comprehend.

Hare estimates—conservatively, he insists—that “there are at least 2 million psychopaths in North America; the citizens of New York City have as many as 100,000 psychopaths among them” (pp. 1–2). Babiak and Hare (2006) even argue that many of these psychopaths are able to gain influence and power and that the current corporate environment allows them to do so effectively. In fact, recent research indicates that psychopaths are overrepresented in current business institutions, including Wall Street; estimates range from 6 to 10 percent of psychopaths in ­leadership functions (Babiak and Hare 2006; Lawrence 2010). ­Historians have made the argument that many examples of bad leadership over ­history can be traced to psychopathic personalities including Hitler, ­Stalin, even Napoleon (e.g., Neumayr 1995).

Developing a Humanistic Synthesis

In summary, the new humanistic model of human nature builds on evolutionary sciences’ insights. At its base it posits four basic drives: ultimate motives that underlie all human decisions. There are two ancient drives that all animals with some capacity to sense and evaluate their surroundings share; the drive to acquire (dA) life-sustaining resources, and the drive to defend (dD) against all life-threatening entities. In addition, there are the two newer drives that evolved to an independent status only in humans: the drive to bond (dB) in order to form long-term mutually caring relationships with other humans, and the drive to comprehend (dC) in order to make sense of the world around us with regard to our own existence.55

As can be seen in Figure 1.1, the economistic model can potentially accommodate some of these drives: the drive to bond, the drive to comprehend, and the drive to defend all can be said to serve the drive to acquire. In contrast, the humanistic view suggests that we have four ­independent underlying natural drives that need to be continually ­balanced. The humanistic model presupposes that none of the drives can be maximized, but that they need to be in balance to provide a sense of dignity and well-being. In the humanistic model, the independent status of the drives to bond and comprehend means that they are treated as ends in themselves, and rewarded by the brain and nervous system in the same manner as dA or dD. The independence of the four drives thereby renders the model of human nature more complex and more accurate.

Figure 1.1 The economistic versus the humanistic model

Emerging research in the field of neuroscience finds supportive evidence for the complexity of human drives, and suggests that the prefrontal cortex of the brain has been uniquely designed to handle this complexity. In the humanistic model, the drives to acquire and to defend still remain viable and important factors in determining human behavior, yet the drive to bond with fellow humans and the drive to comprehend are strong, independent, competitive forces. As a result, the four independent drives are frequently in conflict with each other. In everyday life, humans struggle to decide how to behave, and how to adaptively respond to the immediate circumstances, for example, whether to treat someone with respect or to disregard this person, whether to spend time with children rather than work, or follow the news on Twitter. Lawrence suggests that this condition of drive–conflict brings the prefrontal cortex into action.56 Its main task is to create a suitable balance when faced with drive–­conflict. Neuroscience suggests that the prefrontal cortex has the capacity to call on all the resources of the rest of the cortex (long-term memory, skills, etc.) to search for a response that satisfies all four drives.57

Humanistic Leadership—Dignity as a Universal Threshold

The four-drive model of human behavior can be enhanced if we take onboard perspectives from the humanities. For example, Hans Kueng’s findings suggest that there needs to be recognition of a human dignity baseline.58 Amartya Sen points out that such dignity enables human freedom.59 Sen argues that if people have not fulfilled their baseline drives, they cannot be considered free. In this sense, and in contrast to what Jensen and Meckling claim, these are basic needs that need to be fulfilled.

The fulfillment of human needs can be included in the four-drive model through what management researchers Thomas Donaldson and James Walsh recently called a “dignity threshold.”60 In other words, to ensure human survival at the individual level, as well as the group level, a better model of human nature needs to integrate universal dignity thresholds. The humanistic model includes a conceptual baseline that ensures basic human dignity as a matter of balance in the four drives. A dignity threshold could, for example, require minimum fulfillments of the drive to acquire (enough food), drive to defend (basic shelter), drive to bond (a social connection to other people), and the drive to comprehend (a basic purpose in life).

This dignity threshold represents a moral claim, but it is also a key survival mechanism. Increasing research shows, for example, that whenever dignity is violated, the human brain reacts as if it experienced physical pain.61 Donna Hicks, an internationally renowned conflict researcher, argues that dignity violations are a pervasive source of conflict.62 Hicks mentions that conflicts across the globe fester if those dignity violations are not addressed.63 Introducing the notion of baseline dignity is not only helpful, but also essential if the model is to help explain human survival and human flourishing.

Humanistic Leadership Practical Wisdom as Operating Logic

A further extension of the core four-drive model of human nature refers to how people make decisions or the operating modus. As shown in ­Figure 1.2, the economistic perspective suggests that humans constantly rationalize the best decisions to maximize utility, while the humanistic perspective suggests that humans draw on capabilities of learning and practical wisdom to enable the balancing necessary. These capabilities, for example, to engage with others and live a life of purpose and thriving can be further developed. In fact, Amartya Sen has argued that they need to be developed.64 According to Sen, the purpose of human development in its various forms should be the development of such capabilities. ­Nussbaum argues that there are particular processes that demonstrate how such capabilities can be developed so that they ensure liberty and dignity. She proposes a list of elements that are core for dignified development practice.65 Hans Kueng and others, drawing on various ancient traditions, have uncovered a number of practices designed to help guide human judgment. These are present in Buddhism, Daoism, and Christianity, which offer practical wisdom practices that can guide people to make ­better decisions.66 Recently, such wisdom practices have been labeled “stakeholder engagement” or “cocreation,” in which various parties allow shared responsibility and shared benefits to enable them to shape decisions together. The development and refinement of capabilities and processes of practical wisdom are a constant learning task rather than an algorithmic process. The humanistic model embraces such practical wisdom, because it helps balance the four drives on or above the dignity threshold, thus allowing flourishing and higher levels of well-being to occur.

Figure 1.2 Operating logics of economistic versus humanistic perspective

Well-Being as the Ultimate Objective

Another extension of the four-drive model of human nature relates to the purpose of human existence. In the reductionist, economistic model, the ultimate objective function is wealth, status, power, or anything else that can be maximized. This view has figured most prominently since technical and statistical research became the focus of economics and management studies. The work of Milton Friedman and his colleagues at the Chicago School represent this perspective best.

In the humanistic model, the ultimate purpose of human existence is the notion of flourishing and well-being. In this, the humanistic model reflects a rather consistent, albeit often forgotten, agreement between economic thinkers about the purpose of the economy. Ever since the emergence of the concepts of economics and management, there has been a debate about their respective larger purpose. Aristotle, who is credited with popularizing the term “economics,” wanted to distinguish “oikonomia” early on from sheer money-making, which he labeled “chrematistike.” Oikonomia should follow moral rules and ultimately enhance “eudaimonia,” the well-being of the community or polis. He disapproved of chrematistike because it represents the relentless pursuit of more.67

When Adam Smith studied the nature and causes of wealth in The Wealth of Nations (1776), he did so believing that wealth is a means to a higher end, which to him was the common good.68 More recent economic thought leaders, including Ludwig von Mises, John Maynard Keynes, and Friedrich von Hayek, similarly argue that the order of economic affairs should lead to a higher level of happiness or overall well-being. Amartya Sen picks up the Aristotelian distinction when he argues that “economic sense” is defined in one of two ways: the first includes the achievement of a good society; the second narrowly concerns itself with business profits and rewards.69 The humanistic perspective endorses the former as the true sense of oikonomia.

Consequently, the humanistic model is oriented toward a balance of the four drives, which achieves ever higher levels of well-being and flourishing.

Responsible Leadership—Balancing the Four Drives of all Stakeholders

We argue that a humanistic perspective of leadership as the responsibility to balance the four drives of self, others and the world can enhance human flourishing and ultimately ensure survival; better than the reductionist, economistic, Spencer, in perspective can.

When examining responsible leadership, the humanistic perspective suggests that all four drives need to be addressed in a balanced and sustainable manner, when motivating people to accomplish something. Based on Darwin’s insights and further neuroscientific evidence, we could therefore extend Maak and Pless’s (2006) definition of responsible leadership as the art of building and sustaining good relationships with all relevant stakeholders by addressing and balancing all four drives. Doing so leaders will be able to contribute to sustainable human flourishing that is called for. Responsible leadership is a demanding and complex task, but as Darwin has observed there are certain rules that can guide responsible decision making. In his book “The Descent of Man” Darwin states:

The following proposition seems to me in a high degree ­probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts… would inevitably acquire a moral sense of ­conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man.

Later he reinforced it by adding:

I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense of conscience is by far the most important.

This moral sense can serve as a guiding post for responsible decision making. Other writers since Darwin’s view morals as a specific human facility, which supported our survival (e.g., Hauser 2006; Wilson 1998). E.O. Wilson (1998) writes that morality comes from innate emotions not from customs or thought. The noted theologian Hans Kueng examined the global religions and the value systems they impart on their followers. He suggests that despite the many differences of the global creeds, there are common elements that they all share: the Golden Rule and the rule of humanity (Kueng 1998). Hauser (2006) also presents empirical evidence for the existence of some specific moral rules that hold across cultures, primarily the following:

• Help others rather than harm them.
• Tell truths, not lies—except for white lies.
• Keep promises.
• Seek fair exchanges that reflect merit differences.
• Detect and punish cheaters.

Similarly, Lawrence (2010) cites the Golden Rule as a survival mechanism, which has appeared in religious and philosophical teachings with regularity over the past 3,000 years. He suggests that the following ­decision rules based on the four drives could help responsible leadership (pp. 92–93):

Moral Rules Deduced from the Golden Rule and Four Drives

dA: In support of the other’s drive to acquire:

• Help enhance rather than steal or destroy, the other’s property.
• Facilitate, not frustrate, the other’s pleasurable experiences.

dB: In support of the other’s drive to bond:

• Keep, rather than break, one’s promises.
• Seek fair, not cheating, exchanges.
• Return a favor with a favor.

dC: In support of the other’s drive to comprehend:

• Tell truths, not falsehoods.
• Share, not withhold, useful information. Respect, not ­ridicule, the other’s beliefs, even in disagreement.

dD: In support of the other’s drive to defend:

• Help protect, not harm nor abandon, the other.

It is proposed that when responsible leaders treat all stakeholders based on these rules, they will be activated because leaders contribute to the fulfillment of all four of the basic drives, the ultimate motives, of human beings. Supporting that claim, research conducted by Nohria, Groysberg, and Eling-Lee (2008) found that indeed, leaders’ ability to meet the four fundamental drives explains, on average, about 60 percent of employee variance on motivational indicators, while previous models have only explained about 30 percent. They also find that leaders can best improve their employees’ motivation by satisfying all four drives in a balanced manner. “The whole is more than the sum of its parts. A poor showing on one drive substantially diminishes the impact of the other three drives” (p. 82). This finding indicates that effective leaders will need to address all four drives for all types of stakeholders in a balanced manner (see Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3 Responsible leadership: Balancing the four drives (adapted from Lawrence 2008)

Responsible Leadership and Supportive Structures

In general, we posit that the humanistic perspective is more comprehensive and better suited to explain human behavior than the ­economistic narrative (e.g., agency theory), which currently dominates business schools. Trying to run a corporation on just two drives is like running a four-­cylinder car with only two cylinders firing (Lawrence 2010). The humanistic perspective does not deny rational self-interest, but actually provides a much longer-term and broadened definition of self-interest that makes it more rational, and much more reflective of our evolved innate nature. Responsible leadership needs to be informed by a better understanding of human nature and understand the ensuing responsibilities.

Responsible Leadership and Irresponsible Leadership

Based on the humanistic perspective, we can then conceptualize that (1) good and responsible leadership is in fact moral leadership, (2) misguided leadership is amoral leadership, and (3) bad and evil leadership is immoral leadership (Lawrence 2010). Misguided and evil leadership here would be those forms of leadership that pursue one drive or two drives of human behavior, but not all four in a balanced manner. Whenever one drive is maximized over any other drive an imbalance is created, which will jeopardize the stability, health, and long-term survival of the stakeholders. In the economic realm, we often witness that a focus on the drive to acquire leads to ignorance of the drive to bond or the drive to comprehend. Looking at the recent financial crisis, Enron and other corporate scandals demonstrate that kind of out-of-balance leadership. Whether there was evil (e.g., Madoff) or only misguided leadership at work, leadership was ultimately irresponsible.

Drawing from the humanistic perspective we can possibly determine the locus of much of the irresponsible behavior in management. A very powerful model of human nature in management theory is derived from economic theory: the axiom that all human behavior is motivated by rational self-interest. Jensen and Meckling (1976) build Agency Theory of corporate leadership on that assumption. For them it logically follows that owners of capital goods will strive to maximize the profits from the use of their capital, and that the senior agents they employ need to be monitored and incentivized to comply. What tends to happen, however, is that the incentive structure for corporate leaders supports the maximization of one drive (the drive to acquire), possibly two drives (the drive to defend), but tends to neglect the drive to bond and the drive to comprehend. As a consequence, this imbalance is consistently leading to ­misguided and irresponsible leadership. This structural setup, however, could also allow for high-intelligence psychopaths to gain leadership positions, which could explain evil and criminal leadership witnessed in some of the crises (e.g., Madoff’s Ponzi scheme).

Designing Corporate Structures to Encourage Responsible Corporate Behavior

While agency theory might have been misleading corporate leaders, there is something to be learned about the structural design that ­supports responsible and irresponsible leadership. In the current context ­shareholders’ drive to acquire is overemphasized, and leaders’ success is measured by shareholder value creation mostly. For responsible leadership that aims to satisfice all four drives for all relevant stakeholders, different support systems need to be in place. In terms of designing corporate structure, scholars suggest a corporate structure that includes checks and balances, much akin to the U.S. constitution. Nohria, Groysberg, and Elling Lee (2008) describe how RD theory can be applied to the structural design of corporations to help satisfice all four drives of employees:

• dA: Use incentives of various types (monetary and nonmonetary) and allow for some control of corporate resources, so that all employees have a chance to acquire financial gain, status, and a sense of personal accomplishment.
• dD: Create a transparent performance measurement system, that allows for accountability and at the same time provides early warning systems to alert individuals and groups to threats to the achievement of their goals.
• dC: Provide all employees with a continuous learning experience. Allow for creativity, experimentation, and continuous improvement. Appoint teams and task forces that cut across organizational lines and charge them with innovating on behalf of the entire organization.
• dB: Organize around teams and support collaboration by building a strong organizational culture. Focus on integrity as cornerstone of relational exchanges and build trusting ­relationships with all stakeholders.

Other scholars and practitioners argue that in addition to these structural features the number of hierarchical levels needs to be reduced. It is argued that less distance between the people allows for better bonding and fosters the kind of trust associated with face-to-face relations. Less hierarchy will also promote higher levels of comprehension, because more decisions are delegated to employees of lower rank. This will in turn require every employee to activate his or her drive to comprehend.

Turnbull, among others, suggests including relevant stakeholder in the governance process of the corporation, so that information flows more freely and better relationships are formed (Turnbull 2002;Pirson and Turnbull 2011 ). Network governance, as these scholars call it, would allow business leaders to make informed and balanced decisions, which are the basis for sustainable relationships with all stakeholders (Pirson and Turnbull 2011). The current unitary board structure is very unfit to support such stakeholder inclusion and therefore unfit to support responsible decision making (Turnbull 2002).

Concluding Observations—Learning and Practicing Responsible Leadership

The different leadership challenges of our time, the clean-up from the financial crisis, the challenges posed by social inequities (including terrorism), and the vast environmental problems require a better understanding of human nature (Bennis 2010). We can benefit by understanding the survival mechanisms that allowed human beings to flourish in the past. If we are able to apply those lessons to current leadership tasks, we can rebalance our organizations and as a consequence the planet we inhabit as well (Figure 1.4). Responsible leadership is not only a concept but also a skill. Since most of our current business theory is understood within an economistic paradigm, most people will require some time to gain a better understanding of the implications of the theory. Once understood, the skills need to be developed to manage for four drives, rather than one drive (checks and balance vs. maximization orientation). It is also important to understand that the humanistic perspective only serves as insight into human nature and does not prescribe any specific actions in managerial situations. It can, however, serve as the basis for successful stakeholder relationships and leadership. When stakeholders perceive that business leaders understand them and appreciate them within the entire four-drive framework, they will be better able to see how their motives fit in with the motives of others, including the motives of a leader. In that sense, mastery of the concepts is necessary but not sufficient for responsible leadership. Each leader (Pirson and Turnbull 2010) must still develop particular skills, knowledge, and experience appropriate to the task at hand. Lawrence argues that Abraham Lincoln was a great four-drive responsible leader of the United States, but that doesn’t mean he would have been a great leader of the Manhattan Project or the Metropolitan Opera (Lawrence 2010).

Figure 1.4 Humanistic perspectives on leadership

Responsible leadership requires a lot of listening and reflection based on stakeholder input. Similar to the prefrontal cortex, a responsible leader also needs to be very creative and suggest alternative options that need to be tested with all the stakeholders involved. This is definitely a very tough challenge, but as Lawrence argues it is just the challenge our brain has been designed to meet, no matter what culture we were raised in.

References

As his student and first biographer Dugald Stewart puts it, Smith’s interest for economic affairs was inspired by a strong concern for the ‘‘happiness and improvement of society’’ (Stewart 1980/1794, p. I.8). cited from Hühn, M.P., and C. Dierksmeier. 2014. “Will the Real A. Smith Please Stand Up!” Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1–14.

Babiak, P., and R.D. Hare. 2006. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. New York, NY: Regan Books.

Baron, J., and M. Spranca. 1997. “Protected Values.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70, no. 1, pp. 1–16.

Becerra, L., H.C. Breiter, R. Wise, R.G. Gonzalez, and D. Borsook. 2001. “Reward Circuitry Activation by Noxious Thermal Stimuli.” Neuron 32, no. 5, pp. 927–46.

Bennis, W. 2010. Foreword to Paul Lawrence Driven to Lead: Good, Bad, and Misguided Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Biederman, I., and E. Vessel. 2006. “Perceptual Pleasure and the Brain.” American Scientist 94, no. 3, pp. 247–53.

Boaz, N.T., and R.L. Ciochon. 2004. Dragon Bone Hill : An Ice-Age Saga of Homo Erectus. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Carter, R., and C.D. Frith. 1998. Mapping the Mind. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Cleckley, H. 1982. The Mask of Sanity (Rev. ed.). St. Louis, MI: Mosby.

Damasio, A.R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.

Damasio, A.R. 2003. Looking for Spinoza Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Darwin, C. 1909. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York, NY: Appleton and Company.

Diamond, J.M. 1992. The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Diamond, J.M. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Diamond, J.M. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking.

Dierksmeier, C., and M. Pirson. 2008. “Oikonomia Versus Chrematistike: Learning from Aristotle About the Future Orientation of Business Management.” Journal of Business Ethics 88, no. 3, pp. 417–30.

Donaldson, T., and J.P. Walsh. 2015. “Toward a Theory of Business.” Research in Organizational Behavior 29, no. 35, pp. 181–207.

Dunn, E., L.B. Aknin, and M.I. Norton. 2008. “Spending Money on Others promotes Happiness.” Science 319, no. 5870, pp. 1678–88.

Glimcher, P.W., and E. Fehr. 2008. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. London, UK: Academic Press.

Gribbin, M., and J.R. Gribbin. 1995. Being Human—Putting People in an Evolutionary Perspective. London, UK: Phoenix.

Haidt, J. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon.

Hare, R.D., 1999. Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Guilford Press.

Hare, R.D., and C.S. Neumann. 2008. “Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 4, pp. 217–46.

Hauser, M. 2006. Moral minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers.

Henrich, J., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, and R. McElreath. 2001. “In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 ­
Small-Scale Societies.” American Economic Review 91, no. 2, pp. 73–78.

Hicks, D. 2011. Dignity—Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Jensen, M.C., and W.H. Meckling. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics 3, no. 4, pp. 305–60.

Kueng, H. 1998. A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kueng, H., and K.J. Kuschel (Eds). 1993. Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kung, H. 2004. Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Kuper, A. 1994. The Chosen Primate: Human Nature and Cultural Diversity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lawrence, P. 2007. Being Human—A Renewed Darwinian Theory of Human Behavior. www.prlawrence.com. Cambridge, MA.

Lawrence, P. 2010. Driven to Lead: Good, Bad, and Misguided Leadership, 34. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lawrence, P., and N. Nohria. 2002. Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lawrence, P.R., and M. Pirson. 2015. “Economistic and Humanistic Narratives of Leadership in the Age of Globality: Toward a Renewed Darwinian Theory of Leadership.” Journal of Business Ethics 128, no. 2, pp. 383–94.

LeDoux, J.E. 1996. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

LeDoux, J.E. 2002. Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Viking.

Liu, J., Z.L. Lu, and B. Dosher. 2009. “Augmented Hebbian Learning Accounts for the Eureka Effect in Perceptual Learning.” Journal of Vision 9, no. 8, p. 851.

Maak, T., and N.M. Pless. 2006. “Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society—A Relational Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 66, no. 1, pp. 99–115.

Maslow, A.H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Miller, E.K., and J.D. Cohen. 2001. “An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function.” Annual Review of Neuroscience 24, pp. 167–202.

Neumayr, A., 1995. Dictators in the Mirror of Medicine: Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin. Lansing, MI: Medi-Ed Press.

Nohria, N., B. Groysberg, and L.E. Lee. 2008. “Employee Motivation.” Harvard Business Review 86, nos. 7–8, pp. 78–84.

Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating Capabilities—The Human Development Approach. New York: Belknap.

Pinker, S. 1997. How the Mind Works, 202–203. New York: Norton.

Pinker, S. 2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking.

Pirson, M.A., and P.R. Lawrence. 2010. “Humanism in Business—Toward a Paradigm Shift?” Journal of Business Ethics 93, no. 4, pp. 553–65.

Pirson, M., and S. Turnbull. 2011. “Toward a More Humanistic Governance Model: Network Governance Structures.” Journal of Business Ethics 99, no. 1, pp. 101–14.

Presented by Donna Hicks at Humanistic Management Conference, Universidad de Monterey, Mexico, April 7/8, 2016

Ridley, M. 2003. Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes us Human. New York: HarperCollins.

Schwartz, B., and K. Sharpe. 2011. Practical Wisdom. Landover, MD: Recorded Books.

Sen, A. 2001. Development as Freedom. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sober, E., and D.S. Wilson. 1998. Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sproul, B.C. 1979. Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around the World. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Tajfel, H. 2010. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Turnbull, S. 2002. “The Science of Corporate Governance.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 10, no. 4, pp. 261–77.

Warneken, F., and M. Tomasello. 2006. “Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees.” Science 311, no. 3, p. 1301.

Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Weick, K.E., and K. Sutcliffe. 2006. “Mindfulness and the Quality of Organizational Attention.” Organization Science 17, no. 4, pp. 514–24.

Wells, S. 2002. The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wilson, E.O. 1998. “The Biological Basis of Morality.” The Atlantic Monthly 281, no. 4, pp. 53–70.

Wilson, E.O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Wrangham, R., J.H. Jones, G. Laden, D. Pilbeam, N. Conklin-Brittain, C.L. Brace, H.T. Bunn, E.C. Roura, K. Hawkes, J.F. O’Connell, and N.G. Blurton Jones. 1999. “The Raw and the Stolen: Cooking and the Ecology of Human Origins.” Current Anthropology 40, no. 5, pp. 567–94.

Wrangham, R.W. 2009. Catching Fire : How Cooking Made us Human. New York: Basic Books.

Wrzesniewski, A., and J.E. Dutton. 2001. “Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of their Work.” Academy of Management Review 26, no. 2, pp. 179–201.

Zahn, R., J. Moll, M. Paiva, G. Garrido, F. Krueger, E.D. Huey, and J. Grafman. 2009. “The Neural Basis of Human Social Values: Evidence from Functional MRI.” Cerebral Cortex 19, no. 2, pp. 276–83.

---